A very strange thing has happened in British politics. According to Philip Blond of the Daily Mail, the Conservative and Labour Parties have changed places. By some alchemy the Tories are now the hope of the “lower classes” while Labour now carries aloft the values of the chattering rich. In a bygone time the Conservatives would rally their voters round the flag and Britain forever. Today the appeal is to the working stiffs who feel “betrayed” by the Saviors of the People.
This year, the rapturous applause was in response to a demand by Cameron to help the poor and relieve the destitute. … The first time delegates rose to their feet was when he expressed his disgust at the 96 per cent marginal tax rate suffered by the low-paid as they try to get off welfare and into work. The second, and more heartfelt, ovation came when he pledged to fight for the poor who have been so clearly and so utterly abandoned by New Labour. …
The overwhelming thrust of this new Toryism is to tackle the causes of poverty, not just its symptoms. For Cameron’s new ‘One Nation’ Tories there are five main drivers of poverty. They are:
- Economic dependency: the UK has the highest proportion of children living in workless households out of any EU country;
- Educational failure: 44,000 school leavers each year are illiterate;
- Family Breakdown: 70 per cent of young offenders are from lone-parent families;
- Drink and drug addiction: one million children have alcohol-addicted parents;
- Debt: British consumers are twice as indebted as those in Continental Europe.
But if this list of woes — welfare dependency, dysfunctional schools, collapsing family values, drugs and debt — is vaguely shared by Americans, the British Conservative solution which is for the government to “fix” Broken Britain may still raise suspicions in a country that has ‘not yet’ come to accept that the State is here to solve things. But it soon may.
Ken Jowitt writing at the Hoover Institution, describes the evolution of the Western soul. He argues that the collapse of the Soviet Union in the last of the three great wars of the 20th century misled observers into thinking the values that America was presumed to embody would inherit the earth. And in 1945 everyone knew what these were. They sold themselves; they made the sale because they worked. Europe admired America because it functioned well, and that fact, however unpleasant, forced a grudging admiration of the virtues which undergirded it.
In the aftermath of World War II, one could say of the Americans and Soviets what Virgil said of Mnestheus’s men: “They are strengthened by success, they have the power because they feel they have it.” For a critical period of time, beginning in the late 1940s, the United States powerfully and authoritatively offered itself as the exemplar of Western liberal capitalist democracy everywhere from Japan to West Germany. Japan and Western Europe might have had socialist, even communist, parties with substantial constituencies, quite different welfare traditions, and marked ambivalence towards the United States, but all the authoritatively defining institutions during this critical period were American: the Marshall Plan, nato, the imf, and the dollar. In a striking expression of the conflation of American, Western, and international power, the United Nations, far from being located in neutral Switzerland, Sweden, or Ireland, was located in the “Empire State,” in New York City. The United States of America succeeded in creating a global political, economic, and military reality, a liberal-capitalist-democratic one led, disciplined, and concretely embodied in the United States.
But some were secretly hoping it wasn’t so; that America’s success was accidental, not due to the operation of virtues they despised. And with the collapse of the Berlin Wall, these secret doubters had their chance. Jowitt argues that in the period following 1991 the old statist ideas were under under no obligation to think they had been saved by America from the big bad Soviet wolf. They could simply accept the fact of victory and let America pick up the tab. “In contrast to the period after World War II when General Motors’s net value was greater than the Italian economy, by 1991 the EU and Asian economies were robust, and in 2009 the Italian carmaker Fiat was bidding to take over GM in Europe and Chrysler in America.” But more importantly, the American elite itself felt under no obligation to ascribe America’s triumph to superior virtue. Things had come for so easy, for so long that they could regard the Soviet collapse as yet another in a series of tributes to themselves, something to be carelessly stored away and mislaid.
In addition to changes in America’s international environments, important changes had also occurred in the United States. Not all appraisals of America’s national condition prior to the end of the Cold War were as euphoric and triumphalist as the neoconservatives say. One of the most astute students of American society, the late Christopher Lasch, forcefully argued that “members of the American elite have lost faith in the values, or what remains of them, of the West. For many people, the very term ‘Western civilization’ now calls to mind an organized system of domination designed to enforce conformity to bourgeois values and to keep the victims of patriarchal oppression . . . in a permanent state of subjection.” That certainly applied to American elite universities from Harvard to Berkeley. In a similar vein, James Kurth suggested, “the most significant development for Western civilization . . . has occurred within its leading power. Increasingly, the political and intellectual elites of the United States no longer think of America as the leader, or even a member, of Western civilization. . . . The American political and intellectual class instead thinks of America as a multicultural society.” This may well apply to President Barack Obama.
For the Western elites, success had become a birthright. It had not even been necessary to win in Vietnam. The Indochinese retreat “proved” one could safely give ground to the enemy and yet emerge triumphant. Was is it even necessary to “win” at all? And from there it was easy to imagine that all the West’s past progress was consequence of their personal excellence and attractiveness instead of due to the enterprise, courage and hard work of their populations. Once the victories of World War 2 and the Cold War could be reinterpreted in terms of their eloquence and personal beauty then it was but a step to the belief that the Western elite simply had to spread their enlightenment upon the masses for the world would saunter into the broad meadows of tomorrow. On the day when lesbian feminists became Presidents of Afghanistan and everyone cycled titanium-framed road bikes to work the world would be at peace.
Jowitt then gallops at full tilt toward the most remarkable aspect of his thesis. He argues that Francis Fukuyama was correct despite everything in believing that Western ideology would triumph over all comers. He points out that no non-Western totalitarian system — not even Islam — has really emerged as a credible alternative to its ideology. He was just wrong about what he thought Western ideology was. The mistake was ignoring the possibility that Western ideology itself could become cancerous; that the West had won the bout and the gentleman Doctor Jekyll had been seen to triumph, little knowing he was about to claim the Championship Belt as Mr. Hyde. Jowitt suggests the transformation, but offers two versions of it. In the first version, Mr. Hyde simply wants to dismantle the nations and replace it it with a multicultural, welfare-dispensing version of himself.
The possible changes I have in mind include an innovative reform of liberal capitalist democracy that substantially reconfigures the nation-state as its flying buttress and extends the ideological tenets of liberal capitalist democracy, e.g., the meaning of individualism in general, citizenship and entrepreneurship in particular, in an institutionally more integrated Western (not global) world. The United States and the eu are best positioned for such a development, though there is an opposing obstacle in each case. In the American case the obstacle is its essentialist, indelible, view of national sovereignty. In stark contrast, “unbundling” — to use Michael Mann’s term — national sovereignty into its various dimensions and functions is the eu’s novel achievement. The obstacle to innovation in the eu, even within the framework of liberalism, is the eu’s allergic response to any ideologically majestic enterprise. To substantially reform the current Western liberal nation-state, the United States would have to become more European in its attitude toward sovereignty, and the eu more American in its acceptance of liberal ideology, not simply liberal practicality, as its inspiration.
The other possibilty is far more disturbing. It’s the prospect that Mr. Hyde really wants to be Mr. Hyde. Jowitt argues that the Nazis really didn’t fly to the moon in 1945 as some cranks have claimed. No. Something stranger happened. The nihilism they represented grew up again our midst of their enemies and, in gentle guise, turned us into zombies. We are the enemy we’ve been waiting for.
Another much more radical possibility, should the current crisis dramatically expand, is the appearance of a novel post-liberal ideology that decisively revises liberal capitalist democracy’s historical legacy and replaces the nation-state as the basic unit of production, power, and allegiance. This would be a genuine world historical event comparable to the emergence of the liberal capitalist nation-state itself in England in the 17th century. …
There is of course, an additional possibility, a malignant one, the emergence of an anti-Western “Movement of Rage,” informed and disciplined by an ideology, like Nazism and Leninism, whose scope is civilizational, not merely national.
And while Jowitt ends his article with the belief that we have nothing much to worry about from this reversal of positions; that “America may substitute a casual Obama for a strident Bush, political apology for political theology, but the level of political endeavor will remain mundane”, I think that he shrinks back from his own conclusions rather than following them to their logical ends. Anyone familiar with the Left will instantly understand why the change in polarity he struggles to describe took place: democratic centralism. The Left in opposition is all “for democracy” but the Left in power is all about “centralism”. The installation of millions of closed circuit surveillance cameras in the UK may be totally useless. But we misunderstand their purpose: they are their because they ought to be. Democratic centralism.
Ironically, the emergence of a fatuous but authoritarian aristocracy was made possibly by the earlier achievements of the peasants. America in 1945 could not afford to subscribe to concepts like “global warming” in the face of a global Soviet challenge. But after the Berlin wall it could. The ultimate reality check preventing the indefinite expansion of the New Deal was Soviet Russia. But unlike Truman in 1945, Clinton in 1991 had no great enemies to face and it was time for a cigar. They have been chain-smoking them since. Those cigars, cumulatively lit, may have lighted the United States and Great Britain to their present situation.
In the UK, those trends may now have reached the point where a political entrepreneur like David Cameron can see an opportunity is raising the countryside against a new bureaucratic class of socialist barons and baronesses, who surrounded by their court of talk-show hosts, entertainers and jesters, all a-twitter over the dangers posed by carbon dioxide, the menace posed by Michael Savage and the inspirational power of the latest Nobel Peace Prize, make too tempting a target to ignore. If these are the people who have inherited the earth in a twisted fulfillment of Francis Fukuyama’s prediction, then we want our money back.
It’s an interesting thesis, especially because it leaves a number of questions unanswered: will hard times destroy a new transnational aristocracy just as success bred it? Or will hard times mutate it into a “Movement of Rage”?
Tip Jar or Subscribe for $5
I grew up in a committed Democratic Party family, hearing that the Democrats were the party of the common man and the Republicans that of the Rich. Whether or not that was ever really true, to large extent those positions have reversed. For all Obama’s alleged success in fundraising among The People, the actual data shows that the Republicans got a larger share of their contributions from small contributors. And by the way, they just put Hillary’s great fundraiser, John Hsu, in jail.
The transformation took place as a result of the revered Civil Rights Movement, or rather, how it was advanced. The focus was on Group Rights, not individual rights, and that was because it was better for political purposes. And Groups are led by Élites of one stripe or another. It was all downhill from there. Politics came to define both the nation as a whole and people individually rather than vice versa.
Perhaps the greatest danger and our greatest hope is that The Angry will define themselves as a new Group, one that might assert common sense and traditional values – or one that might give people something to do with all that ammo we have accumulated.
Changing places happened here in the US too. In the late 19th and early 20th Centuries, the GOP was the party of big business and equality for blacks, while the Donks were for the unwashed masses. Now the Donks are owned by George Soros as Hollywood elites call for amnesty for a pedophile movie director. Meanwhile he GOP thrives in Southern and Mountain right-to-work States where blue collar folks drive to Wal-Mart to pick up a Reba CD after their shift at Hyundai.
It does seem as if we are entering a period of political realignment. There are no doubt many reasons for this, but many of them link back to this undeniable fact: in the developed world (aka the West), life is not really that tough.
The West has been able to sustain, through bubbles and busts, a productive capacity that is unmatched in human history. Never before have so many gotten so much with so little effort.
But this fact – which is a largely good news – has a dark side. Human beings are dynamic entities, and so must strive, must exert, must drive, must keep moving to be complete persons: in short, we must work.
Even shorter: stasis = death.
However, the wealth created by the productive capacity mentioned above has resulted in significant numbers of our citizenry who do not have to work. Interestingly, the “non-productives” are concentrated at the ends of the income spectrum.
The very rich do not have to produce because we have created a system in which they have so much accumulated wealth that it is almost impossible for them to spend it all. They can safely stop working, and never need worry about not having life’s necessities. In fact, many of them never need worry about not having life’s luxuries. Additionally, many of the very rich have never produced, because their wealth is inherited.
The very poor do not have to produce because we have created a system which has redistributed wealth to them through the government, at little or no cost. They can safely avoid working, and never need worry about not having life’s necessities. In fact, the latest trends are to see to it that they have enough money to enjoy life’s luxuries (at least by global standards) – TV’s, cars, drugs, stylish clothes, high-quality, on-demand healthcare, etc. – goods that only the rich can afford outside the US. Additionally, many of the very poor have never produced, since they inherited their access to state largess through a system of cyclical illegitimacy.
The Left has become the voice of these groups, the representative of the non-producer. They use parlor tricks – accolades heaped upon “generous” donors who give money to “good” (aka left-wing) causes, heart-rending stories of poor children who don’t have enough to eat, feel-good reports of government programs that helped Ms. Doe to get back on her feet – to convince us that their side is the side of virtue.
But the policies promoted by the Left are not virtuous. They attempt to further increase the number of non-productives. They promote policies that bias the system against the entrepreneur; they promote regulatory frameworks that benefit big business (businesses which are, because of their scale, filled with non-productives); they promote nationalized healthcare, so that you don’t have to work to get coverage; they promote expanding entitlements, so that you can retire (i.e. stop working) early; they promote unionization, so that workers can have someone “on their side” trying to get the maximum amount of economic rents for the minimal amount of work; and so on.
Work is a path to virtue by enabling and rewarding good actions. Policies that seek to minimize work, then, can hardly claim to be virtuous, regardless of their intentions.
The current difficulty in the US (and, it seems, in the UK) is that the Right has all but abandoned its role as the voice of the producer. Largely, this is because the behavior of the Republican Party (the supposed representative of the Right) has been utterly hypocritical. Republicans said they were for limited government, low taxation, scaled-back entitlements, less government spending and regulation, etc. But when in power, they didn’t walk the talk.
This hypocrisy has left the Republican Party in tatters. From 2000-2008, according to Gallup polls, the Democratic Party’s favorable rating has not changed: it was 53% in 2000, and 53% in 2008. During that same period, Republican favorables went from 54% to 40% – a massive, 14-point drop. The basic reason is hypocrisy. I respect someone I disagree with if they really act in accordance with what they say. I don’t respect someone I agree with if their actions don’t match their professed beliefs.
So conservatives have abandoned the Republican Party in droves, further weakening the Left’s unrelenting attempts to move the US toward “democratic centralism.”
At the same time, the Left has vilified the productive sector, accusing it of being greedy, narcissistic, over-consuming, racists, sexist, etc.
Greedier than Charlie Rangel? More narcissistic than Barack Obama? More over-consuming than Al Gore? More racist than Jesse Jackson? More sexist than NOW? Really?
No, not really. In the real world, the productives realize that a business can’t succeed if they don’t share the wealth and credit, can thrive if it doesn’t conserve, and can’t retain talent if it allows its biases to prevent the recruitment and retention of talent.
And so, we are left with a situation where a huge chunk of the citizenry has no effective representation. This is the reason there will be a re-alignment. In a republic, citizens will not long tolerate being unrepresented. Something has to happen.
So who will speak for the productive sector? The political entrepreneur who steps forward to bear this standard will tap into an enormous and increasingly energetic base of support. It will take a while for these leaders to emerge, but when they do the re-alignment will happen fast.
The good news is that our basic legal framework – from the Constitution on down – supports the emergence of such a leader. Revolution is not necessary.
The bad news is that such a leader has not yet appeared, and the number of non-productives is growing fast, so time is short. Perhaps David Cameron is such a leader in the UK (I have my doubts, but keep hope alive), but there is no one like that who has yet emerged in the US.
But I remain confident a new group of leaders will emerge. And, somehow, I feel like the internet will play a leading role in this drama. As will blogs like Belmont Club, and the thoughtful and engaging members herein.
The times, they are a changin’.
L3
Robert Heinlein once opined that an armed society is a polite society. That is the elephant in the room that remains ignored or unmentioned. It is the one variable in the equation that can change the outcome.
Will it?
In any event, it is the canyon that separates America from everyone else and opens the possibility of a different “solution” to the problem.
I grew up in a committed Democratic Party family, hearing that the Democrats were the party of the common man and the Republicans that of the Rich.
Haven’t the ultra-rich always been Democrats? Men like Soros, Gates, and Buffet wear the mantle of men of industry, but philosophically they’re pure Marx.
L3: you been long time gone (probably being productive) but when you reappear, you reappear.
On/T:
Steyn argues that the installation of a socialized medical care system reduces the conservative to arguing about the efficiency of the system. The issues of rights and freedom having been solved, what happens next is on the margins. I think he’s right. Its really hard to get people to take up a burden they have been once relieved of.
Maybe the germ of the British race has been somehow preserved. Maybe they will return as in the Olden Time. I dont know if David Cameron is the instrument, (but from what I can tell hes a dull knife) but hopefully they can find one. Maggie may have been their last gasp.
They are our oldest friend and mother, as Australia and Canada are our sisters.
The rebirth of the 2nd Amendment is indeed a positive sign.
Perhaps analogous to what Leo said, I heard a political analyst (don’t recall who, but it wasn’t one of the famous idiot ones) say that what Americans vote for is prosperity.
They will vote for whatever political party delivers prosperity. If the Democrats keep delivering in the near future what they have delivered so far this year, the people will find someone else to vote for, because what we are seeing is NOT prosperity. With the state of unemployment in Ohio being what it is, the trans-national enthusiasm for Obama being served is pretty thin gruel. Ohio is traditionally a bellweather state, in that it does not go too far either left or right. And right now, the Democratic Party is sinking in the people’s esteem.IMHO.
For example, the local paper was today touting that the junior Senator from Ohio, Sherrod Brown (D), had hung a lot of his political future on “climate change legislation”, i.e., “Cap and Trade”. As the people awaken from their collective political stupor (especially blue collar union folk that work in steel mills and auto factories) and realize that George Bush is no longer president, and just who and what the Democrats are really about, I think that Sherrod and his familiars will be in big political trouble.
L3, as usual, has produced a trenchant analysis of our times. I would like to see him expand his ideas to consider what becomes of our society when more people inhabit the idle sector than the productive. What mechanism exists to keep the country functioning when all signs point to the profitability of living off the work of others? Or does a society, reaching such a point, simply collapse into anarchy?
Nah, Cameron is a pol. Which makes him an opportunist to his core. The Brits have destroyed their seed corn. There will be pockets of those who choose to produce. But not in sufficient quantity to affect wholesale change outside of a absolute catastrophe. For the majority of British subjects stasis is the order of the day. Oh, and the flight of the producers to America and other producer friendly countries has been going full throttle since Blair’s turn at the podium. We see quite a few that make the LARGE sacrifice to relocate to the U.S.A. here in Florida. They seem to like the central Florida area. Hard working bunch. Reminds me of the puritans.
The Left in opposition is all “for democracy” but the Left in power is all about “centralism”.
wretchard, you said a lot, but this is the core. perhaps of socialism and communism, too.
I’ve been saying since the late 1990s that the republicans and democrats had changed positions, the dems more interested in defending entitlements than in trying anything new – but then, the original democrats were reactionaries, the republicans technocrats.
there is nothing new under the sun
Leo – “It does seem as if we are entering a period of realignment.”
Time is too short for realignment. If conservatives break off into a third party it will GUARANTEE election victory to leftist Dems for the foreseeable future by splitting the right of center votes.
Even now the left pulls this trick regularly in elections by behind the scenes support of big ego third party politicians be they libertarian, “independent” or whatever. The result is siphoning away enough votes from the Republican candidate for the Dem to win. It just happened in the Minnesota senate race and looks about to happen in the NJ governor race.
So what is the answer. Support conservative candidates in the only right of center major party, the Republican party, in order to produce a conservative majority. If you are in an area where a conservative candidate is running in a primary, help him out. If not, support a conservative candidate in another district or state. The best group that I know of with considerable experience doing this is the Club for Growth. They only support candidates with a proven conservative legislative record who have a good probability of winning.
http://www.clubforgrowth.org/index.php
We can turn around the leftist onslaught, but we have to do it with intelligent tactics that will succeed.
I have another idea that I am in the beginning stages of implementing. That is quietly beginning to establish a local network of like minded individuals who I have encountered in my business and political activities over the past decade. What I have in mind is having periodic small meetings to discuss various possible futures and preparedness for them. An example of a best case future scenario would be moving the group toward active support of a local conservative candidate. A worst case future would be preparedness for a collapse, which, if we are fortunate will never happen.
The world is crumbling ‘neath our feet
As what was Right’s now Left
The liberal win is now complete
And we are now bereft
Of any counter argument
To liberal thought and deed
Conservatism now seems spent
They’ve joined the hearts that bleed
One mustn’t think it’s over there
The problem’s not our own
They’ve had their own Obamacare
They’ve put their souls on loan
To nanny state in every guise
Sharia to the dole
They’ve crossed the lonely bridge of sighs
To never more be whole
Whatever happens to the Brits
Has happened first to France
And before them it came to Fritz
Now it’s our turn to dance
To think that in my father’s time
Not many years ago
The country’s economic clime
Was government go slow
But now we’re headed for the cliff
The music’s getting loud
Just time for one more jazz time riff
Then join the lefty crowd
I thought the description of Cameron’s approach sounded familiar but I couldn’t remember the exact term they used. And through the miracle of Wikipedia:
Tory Democracy of Lord Randolph Churchill
“By 1885 he had formulated the policy of progressive Conservatism which was known as “Tory Democracy”. He declared that the Conservatives ought to adopt, rather than oppose, popular reforms, and to challenge the claims of the Liberals to pose as champions of the masses. His views were largely accepted by the official Conservative leaders in the treatment of the Gladstonian Franchise Bill of 1884. Lord Randolph insisted that the principle of the bill should be accepted by the opposition, and that resistance should be focused on the refusal of the government to combine with it a scheme of redistribution. The prominent, and on the whole judicious and successful, part he played in the debates on these questions, still further increased his influence with the rank and file of the Conservatives in the constituencies.”
There really is nothing new under the sun.
The curse of humanity is our tendency to suspend disbelief when it is inconvenient not to do so. On the other hand, that ability is limited–when someone tells us that the crocodile that is eating our child is an angel bestowing kisses upon it the veneer cracks, and often once it is broken it cannot be patched back together again. We just start shooting crocodiles as well as people who assert they are angels where ever we find them.
There is a breaking point for everything. The question is, at what point does it come, and to what peril have the victims of the illusionists been put into when the illusion vanishes? Nothing induces rage so much as betrayal–what will be the fate of the political classes when the scope of their betrayal and lies has been laid bare and visible for all to see?
As the saying goes, we live in interesting times.
Anyone familiar with the Left will instantly understand why the change in polarity he struggles to describe took place: democratic centralism. The Left in opposition is all “for democracy” but the Left in power is all about “centralism”.
Sadly the the Right in power is all for respect for duly constituted authority, but the Right in opposition is also all for respect for duly constituted authority.
We now have wolves in shepherd’s clothing.
And our sheepdogs have agreed to be punked by the wolves “before dinner” in exchange for some scraps at the feast.
herb,
Been trying to be productive, and feel bad about not commenting as much. Whether I have actually been producing value, well, the jury’s still out on that. It’s very challenging business environment.
Indeed, at the very moment when I should probably get more engaged in the political process, the business needs more time and focus. Call it the “Conservative’s Dilemma”.
But this is a question we all face: what is the highest and best use of my time? Should I spend Saturday going to my 6 year-old’s soccer game, or should I use that time to get engaged politically?
Anyway, this Saturday I chose soccer.
The game was rained out. Doh!
It’s been that kind of year…
Cheers,
L3
It doesn’t seem like much of a choice to me (Jowitt’s). Any collectivist system, even though it has the word “democratic” attached, may understand the meaning of individualism, but it doesn’t respect it. The same can be said in regards to citizenship and entrepreneurship, too – all those ideas (things) become tools of the state (or collective) where they lose all meaning – nothing means anything. (For an example of nothing means anything see Spitzer, Eliot…but then, I’m sure he will soon be rehabilitated and it won’t matter anyway – except maybe to his wife.)
Sovereignty is not an obstacle. In a liberal (classical) nation, the individual holds some measure of sovereignty – ultimately, no matter how much it is diluted or divided, it belongs to the individual, not the state.
As for the anti-western “Movement of Rage” isn’t that what we are dealing with now, 50 years on – I am thinking in particular of the 60′s “Days of Rage” and its aftermath, all exemplified by that scumbag Bill Ayers and his murdering savage bitch wife – when the rage is gone what we have left is what we have now – nothing means anything. This is a place where Chuck Schumer and Barney Frank are great men and heroes, where Charlie Rangel is unremarkable (but, geez, what a funny guy!) and where the criteria for a, what some might say prestigious, international award is little more than a mediocre bumper sticker – “Imagine Peace.”
Yikes.
It would appear to me that there are already millions of Tea Party participants merely waiting the word from a leader willing to stand up against the entrenched DC rat’s nest of lobbyists, politicians and thieves, so that any smaller local meetings are in a way re-inventing a humongous wheel that’s already there, pitchforks and flame-throwers at the ready.
If Leo or Pappa Ray or any of the posters who slyly mention behind-the-scenes preparations have some way of dropping the “go” flag to get everyone in the streets at the same time going the same direction with the same intent, I don’t see that there’s much Obama or the National Guard or ACORN will be able do about it.
I get regular e-mails from some sort of national Tea Party central that I really don’t know who they are or what their background or intent is, other than pathetic little bleats for fund-raising. I wonder how extensive their database is.
There is a good argument that the only vehicle in the time span we have left has to be the Republican Party. There are two counter arguments. First, that the Republican Party itself is as guilty as the Democrats, but just don’t have the cojones to stand up and demand the government control of the people that the Democrats are willing to push for. However, they will gladly accept control of the people as part of the ruling structure [Incumbency Party]. Second is the possibility that there is literally not enough time left for political action to be effective and that we are merely waiting for the end of the “Phoney War”. I personally am inclined to the both as being likely, but your mileage may vary.
I suspect we will be following a two track response to the regime. But there will be an event that will force us to one or another in a rather traumatic fashion.
As far as a realignment in Britain; for them it is literally too late. Britain is gone as a political entity. In what may be a Celtic version of a national Kamikaze attack; Ireland ratified the EU treaty. They have done more to destroy the English by that than by centuries of resistance to the English.
Poland has finished its ratification formalities. The Czech Republic may overthrow its Prime Minister in order to get an immediate ratification [What the EU-crats fear is that a Conservative government that has promised to let Britons have the promised referendum on the EU will do so, and that if they reject it, then Britain is out and the EU hegemony cannot be legally established.].
If the EU treaty goes into force, there will be no United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland for Cameron to be Prime Minister of. The former UK will lose all control of its military, its foreign policy, its trade policy, and in fact all law will be made in Brussels instead of 75% as today. Britain itself will be divided into “regions” for EU purposes; that have no relationship to history, peoples, or culture. Kind of like the Europeans divvied up Africa and the Middle East.
It has been, all along, the hope of Labour to stall the national elections until they are moot. They have succeeded. You can be sure that those caught recently for corruption from the PM on down will be guaranteed lucrative positions in the EU where they will fit right in.
As for the Brits, they will cease to exist as a national entity.
Which brings up one interesting question.
We are tied in a web of both bilateral and multi-lateral treaties with the nation states that are being subsumed [with different degrees of consent of the citizens] into the EU/Fourth Reich. That, incidentally, is NOT a snarky reference to the Third. The original “First Reich” was the sogannante “Holy Roman Empire” under the Franks. It combined what is now France and what is now Germany, plus what are now lesser states. If his son Louis had not divided the Empire amongst his sons Lothair, Pepin, and Louis according to Salic Law, much of European history would not have happened. The EU can be considered a revival of the Frankish Empire.
Now, once a state ceases to exist as an independent entity; treaties with it are void. One has to wonder what the military status of the EU will be in the absence of NATO, and under what rules trade will be conducted in the absence of commercial treaties. After all, we are no longer allies, or have even worked out the nature of our mutual recognition of each other. In any case, the world is very definitely changing. And there is no proof that the change will be for the better.
We may work things out. I am sure that MC will be here lauding the new relationship, or lack thereof. And from the point of view of France which functionally rules the EU, it will be a good deal. As long as it lasts.
Subotai Bahadur
WSL,
Thanks for the kind words.
I would like to see him expand his ideas to consider what becomes of our society when more people inhabit the idle sector than the productive. What mechanism exists to keep the country functioning when all signs point to the profitability of living off the work of others? Or does a society, reaching such a point, simply collapse into anarchy?
Well, I don’t know if I’m the best guy to expand on that, but here’s my best shot.
I think the thing to watch is the spiritual dimension. My unscientific, anecdotal observation is that a lot of people never stop producing. I have also observed that those folks are disproportionately believers in God. My hunch is that they see that all of their actions have meaning, so they never stop acting, never stop working.
These people – regardless of which creed they profess – are always looking for a plow to push. I’m sure you know people like this. If their employer goes out of business, they find another job. If they get fired by their employer, they start a business. If their business fails, they find another to start. If they sell their business, they either start another, or they turn their attention to needy causes.
In addition, there was a time when these folks were held up as exemplars of citizenship in our communities. They were treated with respect, and felt proud of their role as producers. Organized religion played an important, perhaps central role in this esteeming process. This community admiration, in turn, induced young people (especially young boys) to strive to emulate their behavior.
Where there is a breakdown in faith, there is a breakdown in hope. And when hope evaporates, so does the willingness to defer gratification that is at the heart of production. After all, at its very core, to produce is to defer gratification. I invest my time making widgets, with the expectation that I can sell the widget for more than it cost me. That requires hope.
Hopelessness is a barrier, then, to production. But the solution to hopelessness is not hope. The solution to hopelessness is faith. And it better be faith in God, cause faith in human beings – who are, after all, flawed – can’t sustain hope, but faith in God can.
Sorry for the digression, but to summarize, my view is that so long as there is a strong religious underpinning to a society, these temptations to idleness can be resisted. That is why I remain optimistic about the US. Depending upon the poll, the percentage of Americans who believe in God ranges from 73-94%. That’s a big reservoir of faith.
Conversely, things are not quite so promising in Europe. There, belief in God is ranges from OK (Poland at 77%) to worrisome (Ireland at 58%) to troubling (UK at 29%) to scary (Sweden at 17% [insert link to Nobel Peace Prize here]). The reservoir is almost drained; still, it will get refilled. It’s just going to be refilled by a different creed.
So, my optimism for the US basically rests on our faith. Which is why, I believe, the liberal project for America will fail – Americans won’t change their beliefs fast enough for the process to progress to the point of irreversibility.
Finally, an interesting test of whether I’m right to be optimistic is probably healthcare reform and abortion. It is clear that the President wants to have public funding of abortion. But regardless whether abortions are eventually paid for by the Federal Government, I’m almost certain that the President will not be able to get abortion passed “through the front door.” He’ll have to sneak it in the back door through some kind of administrative ruling. Why? Opposition, primarily, of the Catholic Church.
Faith still really does matter in the US. It is our true hope, as long as we don’t change.
Cheers,
L3
#20 lc
Then you can really feel good about yourself. It works for celebrities–it can for you too.
Calm down–close your eyes and just imagine–Whirled peas. It makes all the difference in the world, especially if you’re driving a Mercedes-Benz.
2 observations:
“Democratic centralism.” Can that be interpreted as democratic statism?
There is of course, an additional possibility, a malignant one, the emergence of an anti-Western “Movement of Rage,” informed and disciplined by an ideology, like Nazism and Leninism, whose scope is civilizational, not merely national.
Ummm… that would be reactionary Islam. It isn’t ‘anti-islamic’ in the least to point out that there is a non-trivial grouping within the Islamic confession that is deeply anti-western and considers the spread of their beliefs as a hostile challenge to ‘enlightenment liberalism.’ This challenge would burn itself out against a West that was holding true to essential values of liberty and property. The statism-with-a-vote of our current crop of ‘leaders’ may not fare so well…
Wretchard and L3, thanks again for your edifying commentary. Leo, if you haven’t read American Babylon by Fr. Richard John Neuhaus, I bet you would enjoy it, especialy the final chapter “Hope and Hopelessness”. Sounds like you are living out the hope.
My problem is that most people I know- including some very dear to me- have no way of understanding what’s being discussed here. How to proceed? Do you work on the Faith and Hope part first? Just live it out yourself the best you can?
The Republican Party arose in the 1850s around the following core principles and groups:
1) Freedom of labor
2) Small farms
3) Entrepreneurial manufacturers
4) Sound currency and strict banking standards
5) High tariffs.
The Democrats were the party of captive labor, large export driven agribusiness, large industries, debased currency with lax lending rules and free trade.
The only place where the parties have really changed their positions is with regard to free trade. The Democrats ostensibly call for stricter control over imports as a sop to labor. What really happened was that they learned that they could institute tariff walls and regulations to punish their rivals and then as the party of the larger industrialists and export driven agribusiness they could use the corrupt political process to buy influence and craft special exemptions in their own interest.
The evidence is clear that over time the Democratic approach introduces massive inefficiencies and results in general impoverishment. If uncertain how that can happen just go down to a GM plant, now owned by a troika of the US Government, the UAW and Fiat, and ask how it feels being down 45%, or walk over to a Hummer dealer and ask how they think being owned by China will work out and how those trade barriers, tax rates, labor and environmental regulations, and destruction of the financial markets to support the friends of Franks and Dodd are working out for them?
My submission for a campaign theme for use on either side of the pond:
You owe nobody anything. You don’t have to apologize to anybody.”
Unfortunately, democrats model for welfare is Britain. They will tax everyone they deemed need to be tax to hand outs more money to the unproductive while enriched themselves. It will be a surprise if Tories wins, democrats will be running scared.
According to the polls the Tories are likely to win, and by a large margin. However that shouldn’t be interpreted as vote for what Americans might regard as “conservative” principles. First of all, a lot of the Tory vote is really a protest vote against Labour (gee why always the “u”?) and not so much, I think a “vote” for more liberty, etc. Second, the left has succeeded in changing the reference point in British mind. People have gotten used to a certain amount of state welfare. This is now regarded as normal, already hallowed by the passage of time. Plus, the UK cannot now go too far out of alignment with the EU, so they are anchored around a range.
But that range and the mean balance between factors in the West are on the whole unsustainable. While the British conservative victory will be a local event, with no wider implications, the real thing to watch will be the pressures on the whole “progressive” system. It is still unclear what or how deep the current crisis is, or even if it merely presages a bigger crisis. But the principle, driven home by the recent financial meltdown, is that if something can’t keep going indefinitely then it won’t. Someday, somewhere the music’s going to stop. Things have come back into sync with reality; and the depth of the misalignment will determine how severe and radical the shifts will be.
If we assume a “worst case” scenario, then events like the British Tory victory, or even a recovery of some or all of the legislature in the US in 2010 will merely act like bicycle handbrakes trying to stop a runaway 24 wheeler truck. With a century of momentum behind the catastrophic tendencies of progressivism we may not get off lightly unless the road ahead is gently sloped and we can coast to a slow stop even with our puny brakes. But if the slope is steep, or there’s a hairpin turn ahead (such as an Islamic nuke, for example, or a real implosion of economies) then the deceleration is going to sudden and severe.
Of course other things may happen along the way that we may not anticipate. A sudden input of cheap energy, a cure for old age or some new propulsive physics can change the trajectory of history radically. But those are all “ifs” and we can’t count on them unless we believe in that complement to the “precautionary principle”, the Publishers Clearinghouse Sweepstakes. We may luck out but we can’t count on it. About all one can safely say is that it’s going to be an interesting next couple of years. But since we’re probably not going to live forever anyway, those interested might as well pour themselves a cup of coffee and stay up to watch the show.
Energy crisis is postponed as new gas rescues the world
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance
By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard
Published: 5:47PM BST 11 Oct 2009
Improvident Britain may avoid paralysing blackouts by mid-decade after all.
The World Gas Conference in Buenos Aires last week was one of those events that shatter assumptions. Advances in technology for extracting gas from shale and methane beds have quickened dramatically, altering the global balance of energy faster than almost anybody expected.
Subotai, coucou
“The former UK will lose all control of its military, its foreign policy, its trade policy, and in fact all law will be made in Brussels instead of 75% as today”
uh not quite, we were/are a full member of EU, and we still are in control of our army and of its budget !
The Brits still will be the Brits, they will act like islanders, therefore more as individualists, (and selfish), this is a remnent geographical characteristic, that no rule or power can change.
While they were more a satellit of America, they’ll become a satellit of continental EU, cause, they need it for surviving.
Before their politicians, the Brit businesmen have opted for EU, and since fast two decades.
If the Brits politicians want to isolate themselves from the EU big marcket opportunities, all their significant business holders will flee away.
So far, I never met a Brit who deliberately would renounce to make businesses.
France which functionally rules the EU
uh not really, Germany does, but Angela as a good “bride” leaves the first role to Nicolas, so that he can pass for the viril leader, and he likes that ! (eh, some kind of inferiority complex due to his small height, but what he has less in height, he doubbled in energy)
Nicolas is necessary to Angela, because he makes her react, otherwise she would be Madame stand-by !
He also shakes the EU servants, when he was the EU president for 6 months, more work was accomplished than in the last decade. So he got applaussed in the EU parliament by the 27 countries parliamenters.
W,
But since we’re probably not going to live forever anyway, those interested might as well pour themselves a cup of coffee and stay up to watch the show.
I don’t know. I’m kinda counting on that eternal life thing. If I’m giving up on that, it’ll take more than a cup of joe to keep me going…
Seriously, seems to me that the issue is whether there is a Western “core” left in Europe (including the UK). I’ve toured these buildings that look beautiful at a distance – grand, sparkling, majestic – but when you get inside you realize the beauty is only as deep as the last coat of plaster. The wood is rotting, the plumbing leaks, the windows don’t close completely, the foundation is cracking, and there’s kind of a mildewy stench. You know these buildings will have to come down and replaced, or be completely rebuilt (a much more expensive process, BTW).
That’s the way European question sets up to me. Is the West still there, hidden under the layers upon layers of plaster? Or is it rotten to the core and ready to collapse?
The question is unanswerable, I suppose, until one day the answer appears. In the case of the UK, my read of the situation is that the elites have all but given up on the Western project. Too much commitment to the alternative vision, too much denial of the facts, too little faith in God, too much pursuit of pleasure, too much adolescent behavior. Kinda like the AGW folks in the face of 11 years of flat temperatures and steadily rising CO2.
What happens when you go all-in with a 2-7 off-suit and the flop is three aces? You know you’re going to lose, but it’s too late – your chips are already in the pot. You take another drink of your G&T, take another drag on your Cohiba, tug on your Yankees cap, sit back and enjoy the ride, I suppose.
Then you move to another table.
Question is then: did you learn your lesson? Or did you blame it on bad luck and the lousy play of your opponents? (Obviously, they should have folded and gone home when you went all-in, but they don’t understand the subtleties of Texas Hold ‘Em the way you do. Pikers.)
A conservative answers one way, a liberal the other. I’ll leave it as an exercise for the reader to determine which answers which way.
Cheers,
L3
The Count @26,
Thanks for the suggestion. I am a big fan of Neuhaus, having been a long-time reader of First Things. His wit and wisdom is missed.
My problem is that most people I know- including some very dear to me- have no way of understanding what’s being discussed here. How to proceed? Do you work on the Faith and Hope part first? Just live it out yourself the best you can?
First, I don’t know the specifics of your situation, but I do know this: personal relationships are very powerful, and many an “unworthy” person was led to the truth by a personal connection with another human being. So laugh with them, argue with them, support them, challenge them, show them that they are worth your time. With rare exception, God acts through human beings to achieve His aims. Be one of his instruments, deal with what He puts in front of you, whatever that entails, consume yourself in doing His work, and you’ll be able to do far more than you ever thought you could. And, heck, you might get a something out of the effort, too.
Finally, you might bring them to the BC for a visit. There’s a lot of good folk who hang out here and share their insights and experiences, especially our generous host. It is a pretty special place, and you can never tell when your friends might find something that resonates with them, and where it might lead. After all, what opens a person’s mind is quite mysterious.
Like most of the really important things in life.
Cheers,
L3
2) Small farms
I’m in favor of that. Makes you immune to industrial downturns for one thing. Creates self reliance. The depression of the 30′s never really hit here. A small farm gives a man some responsibility.
I don’t like the enlargement of the farms. But, I have noticed over my lifetime, some of the big farms fail too.
We have gotten away from our agricultural roots, to our collective loss, I believe.
L3; Since you are from Texas, I guess you are quite familar with T. R. Fehrenbach.
Rest of you can find him under “opinion” at
mysa.com.
Anyway, a few years back, Uncle Ted made a prediction about the UK. He predicted that England would be re-Christianized by black missionaries from Africa. Well, we shall see what we shall see. Before you discount his prediction, I have seen others of his come true. So I pay attention to what he says.
At any rate, this particular one has always left me with an image of the big cooking pot
with cannibals dancing around. Except this time the skin tones are reversed from the cartoons of yesteryear. Good for a chuckle.
The bad news is that behavior inside the UK today is rather more commensurate with that of atavistic savages rather than with that of
civilized nations. They are destroying that which is vital to their sustenance. Their awakening may be rather Biblical in nature.
One of the few politicians to ignite enthusiasm from “the people” is Sarah Palin. Yet the Republican party reacts as though she is poison. The damage clearly being done to our country by the liberals now is being effectively resisted by the people, not by the Republican party. Even if someone does emerge who can speak honestly to the people they will not be able to turn this stodgy group of losers into an effective force for change.
I do not see this destruction being stopped until there emerges a new political party that manages to attract leaders who are willing to work together without consideration as to who will become the standard bearer for the group. Real Americans work together this way every day in many walks of life but it hasn’t happened in the political arena in many, many years.
The two parties have proven beyond a shadow of doubt that neither one independently nor both collectively can be trusted to work for the benefit of the people rather than themselves. Governance in this country is in crisis mode at every level and our country cannot rejuvenate without tearing down the political system that currently exists.
This task will not be easy. Both parties have conspired to gerrymander districts and build protective walls that make it nearly impossible to throw them out until their greed or hubris attracts the searchlight of negative publicity.
Times are not changing fast enough L3.
30. Charles,
American technology saves the day.
http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/2009/10/got-gas.html
World takes advantage. Euros want to get out from under Putin’s thumb. Wells break even at around $2 to $5 per 1,000 cu ft.
Leo, you write some great stuff, you have a gift (i know where you got it). Wish you were my neighbor.
W, off-topic, but BC is a great place to catch a breath of fresh air, thanks; love the comments section.
34.bob, couldn’t agree more. Am reading Omnivore’s Dilemma, wherein Michael Pollan describes Joel Salatin’s Virginia Polyface Farm, a model of sustainable, Chestertonian agrarianism. Not really a viable option for so many of us, but there are always ways and places to start.
We are going to need many avenues of activism to participate and embody the re-alignment, and we’ll need some kind of coalescing figurehead-type leadership that we can rally behind; I keep looking for ways to implement IDEAS that have LEGS for my/our daily life: drinking from the wells of wisdom and knowledge,(BC included), making my own work excellent, posting good links to facebook and my blogs, etc.
I’m looking for a clearinghouse of actionable ideas for the yeoman that can generate critical mass in the possibly short time frame available. BC provides one groundfloor venue for that. Tea parties, Breibart-type capers, good old-fashioned writing & calling your reps, directing your wealth locally and in accord with conservative values. I need a wall where some of the stickier ideas will stay visible till we can develop a steeper learing curve.
Well of course an Islamic nuke will cause Western cities to die. Changing everything. The rendezvous with scarcity, as Ed Driscoll likes to point out, is coming.
Not through “green dreams” of global poverty to “heal Gaia” but through Western cities dying from Jihadist nukes, a feckless Obama pushing for total surrender, and suspension of the Constitution, and a reaction against that. With generally, total War against the enemy which will be defined as all Islamic nations/peoples with nukes or the capacity to create them.
A WAR of all against all, generally, with Russia taking most of Eastern Europe and perhaps Germany and Austria because of general weakness, and other regional take-overs. Global trade to a standstill.
Global trade cannot function when shipping containers might kill a city, rather than bring cheap Chinese shoes. Thus, a “new Dark Ages” which will be much poorer, far less Global, and in fact nationalist and racialist and sectarian. These identity groupings providing safety and security the way feudal lords and castles did against marauding Vikings and Muslims in the Dark Ages. Victor Davis Hanson notes that freedom and prosperity generally are indicated by the absence of fortifications, like Castles or forts. In the Med, these are basically aspects of life from 1850 onwards.
Security from “nuclear car bombs” is gained by excluding anyone and everyone who might be Muslim. And not of a particular sect, nationality, and so on. In other words, “Balkan Rules” for dissolution of the Pax Americana. The way Yugoslavia fell apart after Tito’s iron rule. Though the Pax Americana was not brutal, it suppressed nationalism/religion and ethnic identity.
The issue will not be a “movement of rage” by a privileged few, the issue will be survival. Not being nuked by a jihadist successor to the Vikings, intent on pillaging and colonization. Even say, the Italians if pressed by the nuking of Rome could be forced to create nukes, ICBMS, and say kill most Tunisians, Egyptians, Algerians, Libyans, and Syrians. For the survival of Milan, or Turin, or Venice.
Nukes were not used after Hiroshima and Nagasaki “just because” of magic pixie dust or some logic inherent in them — but rather rational Mutual Assured Destruction. Nuclear proliferation plus deniable terrorist proxies plus disintegrating nation-states plus jihadism equals death of Western cities. Particularly since the predictable abject groveling and surrender will only encourage more nukings to gain further concessions.
Forcing the issue — Kill or Be Killed. Simple as that. Live, by doing whatever it takes, or die. Most Westerners will choose life. Of course, that makes the military, scientists, technicians, industrial manufacturing, far more important than the transnational, transgendered clowns that characterize the elites (not the least of which is Global Warming being replaced by nuclear winters). Which is why precisely that fate will befall the elite the way they self-immolated in WWI and in the appeasement of WWII.
It’s good to be online again. My download speed dropped to zero for the last week, but all is fixed.
Lots of catching up to do, no time to chat. So (cuts to the chase)…
… love the new photo.
In a bygone time the Conservatives would rally their voters round the flag and Britain forever. Today the appeal is to the working stiffs who feel “betrayed” by the Saviors of the People.
The strangest development of the last year, at least to me, has been the attacks of American Conservative intellectuals on the values and worthiness of their (former?) “working stiff” allies. I say “strange” because it’s obvious that in these times conservatives (and libertarians) of all stripes must “hang together or we will all hang separately.”
I canceled my subscription to National Review (after 20 years) after the leadership there began mocking Sarah Palin, not because I think she’s our ideal standard-bearer, but because the tone sounded snobbish, condescending, and seemed counter-productive.
Here, let me give you a sentence which would destroy the GOP and consign the US to decline and socialism — “I, Sarah Palin, do proudly accept the nomination of the Tea Party of America as its candidate for President of the United States.”
My Leftist leaning-regional paper recently ran Stephen Hayward’s “Is Conservatism Brain Dead?”, with much approval (their answer being “yes it is and here’s proof its leaders agree with us”).
Then you have the attacks on Palin and Limbaugh, etc, by “conservatives” such as Rick Moran, David Brooks, “The Next Right” bloggers, etc.
Can someone explain to me how this is productive? Can someone draw me a battle plan for stopping Obama and the Dems that does not include allies such as Palin and Limbaugh?
Because the “working stiffs” we need hold these people, not David Brooks and Rich Lowry, in high regard. Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh can launch millions to the polls. David Brooks can bring a few friends in a taxi-cab.
A couple of things that might be mentioned about the private/public spending divide:
In many of the publicly-run institutions of the UK, at least in the UK, the people at the “sharp end” that actually do the work are actually grossly overworked and underpaid – also under-supported. This obviously applies to the military, but also to quite a lot of hospitals over here. It seems equally inevitable that any government-run organisation (and to be fair any sufficiently large private one, especially with a monopoly or close to it) accumulates a grossly excessive number of bureaucratic drones who do nothing useful whatever. THis part of it applies to the military as well; for example, at the moment the Royal Navy has more admirals (rear-admiral or above) than ships. I suspect that the USA is in a similar position.
Secondly, not all public spending is bad. Spending, for example, on new highways and bridges that are actually needed is spending on a public good, that no private organisation could realistically undertake. Spending on improved maintenance of infrastructure we already have is an even clearer example. One example of this in the UK is our water supply and sewer systems. I am told that one water leak near Manchester had been there so long that many people in the area thought that it was a natural spring. But there are no votes in water pipes and sewers, so…
whiskey,
the transnational, transgendered clowns that … self-immolated in WWI
One correction. It was not the poseurs who died in WW-I, it was the best that Western Civilization had. The real aristocrats inspected their troops feet and then lead them over the top and walked into the machine gun fire of the Somme. In one day the British lost more men than the Americans had during the three days of Gettysburg exactly 52 years earlier. British casualties on July 01, 1916 totaled over 57,000, meaning that one out of every thousand inhabitants of United Kingdom were lost in one day. Make that one out 250 men of fighting age. For the officer corps, the true aristocrats and the educated urban professionals who truly believed in and built and lead Western Civilization, the proportion was much larger. They never recovered.
http://tinyurl.com/yky7ydt
@43 LifeoftheMind
Excellent point. The loss of so many who might have made such a difference in the course of history since WWI is too easily forgotten. What’s more, the entire “progressive” agenda that steadily gained ground throughout the 20th century was nourished and propelled at the outset by the nearly universal sense of defeatism among the victors that followed on the heels of that war. It was the greatest cataclysm of modern history and it overshadows everything that has happened since.
There is a strong current of belief on the right that another 9/11 will cause Americans to snap out of it and face the reality that we do have enemies. But despair is a great motivator too and every bit as likely a consequence of such an attack as anything else. Expecting the enemy to wake up our neighbors will not save us. We need something of our own to rally around and cling to, for our sake as well as theirs.
Leo,
Agree completely with your stasis = death, and the rise of the “non productive” arguments.
If I may add to your argument. The mid’60′s to me were the apogee of American prosperity. It was the last era of the stay at home mom, good free schools, inexpensive Universities, inexpensive necessities and a life uncluttered by the Nanny State regulation. To make your point, that era also spawned the hippie counterculture left that has dragged us down and brought us to our present crisis.
Since then this counterculture left has promoted the rise of a non-productive Mandarin elite that has sapped the vitality of our nation. We now have legions of these grossly overpaid rent seekers in and out of government :quango technocrats to dream up ideas to regulate our every move to drive productive enterprise overseas, lawyers to enforce those regulations, Wall Street financiers to finance the huge Nanny State bureaucracy, Educators and University officials to indoctrinate our kids, social workers to keep the unproductive poor unproductive, and a media elite to make sure our heads are filled with with socialist countercultural notions antithetical to our American values.
This elite has driven key productive industries from our shores, so many important critical components to basic industries we no loner produce. Sure America can now make great gadgets and toys, but basic industries have suffered. As we near a ‘rendezvous with scarcity”, our capacity to provide the basic necessities within our shores has been sorely depleted.
Our standard of living has also declined mightily as the Nanny State elite’s long tentacles have corrupted, infected and inflated all those endeavors and expense items high on a family’s budget: housing, healthcare, transportation, energy, insurance and education.
However even in these times of crisis, these trends can still be reversed. Sometimes, we as humans need to go to the brink of disaster, before we steadfastly turn back. There has been much apocalyptic talk here at the BC in recent weeks. Do not despair. The decline of America need not be at hand. The pendulum can stillswing back from the far left to the right, as it normally does in political situations. The counterculture elite may have overplayed their hand. Buraq’s clueless fascism has angered not just conservatives, but most of the independents. Here in Hollywood, even liberals are starting to question the direction we are heading. And this is occurring in just the first nine months of this administration; we still have over a year to the next elections. We economy likely will be far worse then than today, and Buraq will likely double down on his mistakes.
We just need to the courage to speak out and fight this socialist takeover. The tea parties are a great start. My biggest concern is with the Republican Party. The party establishment seemingly has laid down with the Mandarin Elite. Just yesterday, the weasel Lindsay Graham came out for Cap and Trade. In this economy! The party establishment is now more likely to criticize the actions of the base than to support it. I think the first order of business is to cleanse the party establishment of it’s Mandarin Elite counterculture sympathizers.
Anybody watch Mike Rowe of Dirty Jobs’ video (youtube — “mike rowe lamb castration” should find it) about the war on work? It needs an edit or two, but he brings up a good point about the modern perspective toward “dirty” and very essential jobs. We don’t have a TV so I’ve never seen his show, but I’ve worked some dirty jobs and running a small farm (27/LOTM #2) is definitely dirty.
Wretchard:
Great post, you never fail to excell.Whiskey, your comments are so on point and so non PC. I must echo a commentator (name forgotten) in an entry about a month ago, “Why nuke or EMT a country that is committing suicide”.
Where is Habu from Tengan, Henoko or Kin hiding out?
IAdog@14:
“So what is the answer. Support conservative candidates in the only right of center major party, the Republican party, in order to produce a conservative majority.”
NO. I WILL NOT vote for a Repub in a case where I can’t see a certain amount of daylight between them and their Dem opposition. What’s the point? I voted for McCain, but only just barely. We’d still be in most of the same fiscal mess right now with him as with Obama, I’d wager.
You miss the point. We’re getting TIRED of voting for the least bad candidate. We’ve been doing that for a decade now. Our gag reflexes are getting very tired, and all we really want is a candidate that won’t trigger them.
marymcl #44 – you are so right – expecting the enemy to wake up our neighbors will not save us. But too, looking to a leader will not save us either. There are many things which we already hold to, if only for our own sakes – an ocean of ideas, reasoned arguments, thought, observations, and a strong tradition of real action, especially when the SHTF. L3 mentioned faith in God and relationships. I was talking with a friend this weekend who sees things much as I do, and as many here do, who told me what keeps him going (and he is a cheerful, thoughtful person) is his faith in God. For me, not being very religious, it is my kids (and I don’t mean “for the kids” stuff; it has a totally different quality to me than what that phrase is usually used for.)
Reality can be denied for only so long.
As Wretchard referred to Gandalf – great things are in motion; we can only play our small part as we see it.
“No reason to get excited,”
The Thief he kindly spoke.
“There are many here among us,
Who think that life is but a joke.
But you and I, we’ve been through that,
And that is not our fate.
Let us not talk falsely now.
The hour is getting late.”
Dave @ 35:
I had not heard that speculation. I go to an Anglican church in Atl. About 40% of the 11AM congregation is Nigerian. A Nigerian bishop visited Atlanta several months ago, came to us for Sunday and didnt darken the door of the local EC cathedral. I understand that the next Archbishop of Canterbury may well be from Africa, that is if the African church stays in the Communion.
A Rechristianization of England would be a true miracle. But I doubt it because they are too far down the road of the Yurps
@49 lc
Well said. I would only add that this forum is both a resource and a blessing. The wealth of shared knowledge and experience, not to mention the poetry and the humor, make Belmont Club a unique treasure. I will never tire of thanking one and all for their contributions here.
marymcl: Agreed. BC is superb!
herb@50: FYI Fehrenbach himself is Episcopalean. Elsewhere he has detailed how the EC has gone from being disproportionately influential in America to a near laughingstock. A sad tale of how adherence to ethical standards surrendered to PC.
And when you said the visiting Bishop did not “darken the door” , I got another one of my crazy mental images.
#31 Marie Claude
uh not quite, we were/are a full member of EU, and we still are in control of our army and of its budget!
France, and the rest of the EU nations until ratification is completed are part of the EU as presently constituted under the EC model that is being specifically replaced. The Lisbon Treaty, which is the subject in point; is word for word the old EU Constitution. The one that was rejected.
The EU Constitution/Lisbon Treaty does some specific things that I have listed. In its 475 pages plus [When I was "on the job", I carried a small (3" x 5"), thin booklet in my uniform coat pocket that had our entire Constitution, our Declaration of Independence, and summaries of key court cases interpreting the Constitution. I was far from the only Peace Officer to do so, since our Oath is to the Constitution.] it specifically over-rides national constitutions in all matters of import, declares its institutions supreme over any other government in Europe, takes over control of the items I mentioned, and allows the EU Commission to redraw the borders within Europe to create new governmental units [Regional Directorates ?] under the EU that replace nation states.
One of the things that those of the Left worldwide refuse to understand is that words mean things. What is said in the EU Constitution reflects the reality that it will create.
Constitutions in modern times in free countries are proscriptions on what the government has power to do. And listing what inalienable rights the people have that the government cannot violate. Even the Constitution of the soon to be void French 5th Republic has some such provisions. The EU Constitution is concerned with limitations on the power of the people or any institutions they have outside of the EU to act in any way. Yes, rights are stated, but it is also stated that they are conditional upon the grant of the EU and can be revoked if the exercise of those rights harms or offends anyone that the EU decides is more deserving. It is exactly the time when the government is oppressing you that the existence of inalienable rights for everyone at all times are of most import. France, and much of the West, seems to have forgotten the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen. My favorite, by the way, is the Second:
“The End of all political associations is the preservation of the Natural and Imprescriptable Rights of Man; and these Rights are Liberty, Property, Security, and Resistance to Oppression.” The last, especially.
It is the most arrant folly to assume that a government, which is made up of fallible and corruptable men, will never oppress the people. And the more distant from the people, the more sure the oppression.
Right now, the EU operates as a functional dictatorship. The unelected EU Commission makes and decides law. There is a European Parliament. It has every power and extrinsic aspect of a real, free, legislative body EXCEPT:
It cannot initiate law, which is reserved to the unelected European Commission and rubber stamped by the EP.
It cannot amend law, which is reserved to the unelected European Commission and rubber stamped by the EP.
It cannot repeal law, which is reserved to the unelected European Commission and rubber stamped by the EP.
It has no real power over the public purse, which is reserved to the unelected European Commission. Indeed, it has no idea of the finances of the EU, because for since 1994 the account books of the EU have been sufficiently incomplete that the required annual audit has failed because the unelected European Commission will not furnish complete information. I note that the issue of popular control of government spending has been involved in both Revolutions that founded our respective countries.
Even in the chimerical debating society that gives the illusion of democracy to the EU, the unelected EU Commission sets rules as to what parties, caucuses, and groups can participate, and how; and can ban unwanted discussions. The European Parliament has about as much real power and influence as the German Reichstag did after the Gesetz zur Behebung der Not von Volk und Reich in 1933.
And there is nothing in the new Constitution that will make it better. In fact, it will make it worse. Right now the all powerful European Commission members are unelected and appointed by national governments with no reference to the people of the nation or to the European Parliament. Under the new Constitution, the European Commission will be appointed by the leaders of the new regions that will replace nation-states. There is no provision for those new leaders to be elected. There will be a new, appointed “President” for foreign affairs who will speak for all EU member states. It does not sound like freedom to me. Your mileage may vary.
uh not really, Germany does, but Angela as a good “bride” leaves the first role to Nicolas, so that he can pass for the viril leader, and he likes that ! (eh, some kind of inferiority complex due to his small height, but what he has less in height, he doubbled in energy)
While Germany is slightly more independent now under Merkel than under the SPD; its independence has been expressed more in a refusal to bankrupt itself rather than subsidize all of Europe. One can judge who is in charge by who makes the rules, and who can ignore them. At the insistence of Germany and France, there are EU limitations on deficit spending, governmental debt, etc. It may be a function of what news crosses the Atlantic, but all I hear is how everyone else has to follow those rules, but France is given [or more accurately just takes] an exception. There is something under the EC/EU called the Common Agricultural Policy. The net result is that the rest of Europe subsidizes French farmers. The EU insists that all military actions be authorized by a supra-national power [EU itself, NATO, UN, etc.], but France gets a pass for invading the Ivory Coast. [Before Iraq and Afghanistan are cited back, I have to note that Iraq was authorized by UN Security Council Resolution 1441 which France voted for, and 16 previous Resolutions. The phrase "in material breach of the ceasefire terms" and ""a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" may be ambiguous to some (who profit from dealing with international outlaws), but in the real word violation of a ceasefire means hostilities resume. Afghanistan is being done under the auspices of multiple UN Resolutions, including one authorizing overthrow of the government, and of NATO.] I admit that our force in the Balkans baffles me, because that should be a purely European matter.
From the outside, France is the big dog in the EU.
Given the fait accompli of ratification of the Lisbon Treaty, I have but two concerns. The first is the refusal of the right of the British people to be allowed to vote for or against being subsumed into the EU. Remember referenda on the topic? The French had one in May of 2005. They voted “No” by 55%-45%.
If the British people want to yield their sovereignty and liberty; they obviously can. There is question as to whether that is their wish. At this point, short of insurrection, they are stuck.
The second concern is what relationship we are going to have with the new EU Reich? We are obviously not allies. We have materially different interests. And with the establishment of the EU Constitution under whatever name, the member states cease to exist. There is actually a precedent for the situation. Prior to the establishment of the 2nd Reich, the German Empire in 1871, we had diplomatic legations in a number of the petty states that were later absorbed by the Hohenzollern Empire. Upon the declaration of the establishment of the German Empire in the Hall of Mirrors at Versailles; those legations and the diplomatic recognition they represented were void and the various treaties in force between them and the United States no longer were in force as the Empire assumed the power of a unified foreign and trade policy for all the member states of the Empire.
There are serious sequalae to this action. Our multilateral and bilateral treaties with the states that now are part of the EU no longer exist under international law. Matters of trade, defense, diplomacy, and technology transfer are now up for grabs.
Under the Westphalian system that still obtains, everything has to be re-negotiated.
To update something I said on another site; you cannot be a little bit pregnant, a little bit at war, or a little bit in command. Add to that, a nation-state cannot just be a little bit sovereign. Such is the real world.
In the long run, I really do not worry about the existence of the EU as a power bloc. There are a number of crises that are intruding, including two huge demographic crises; that ensure that whatever entity rules Europe in say 2050, the EU will have no more substance then than its predecessor the original Reich, the Holy Roman Empire, had when Napoleon dissolved it in 1806.
Subotai Bahadur
As I’ve long said, it is pass time for America to change its elites. That includes the current leadership of the Republican Party. We can do that through the primary system, so long as ACORN and the like haven’t delegitimized the electorial process as they have long hoped.
As to the current buzz about lots and lots of cheap natural gas, consider it self-serving puffery. Technical advances in extracting gas from tight shale formations are real but these are not cheap processes. They require capital, water, and energy. Certainly, it will increase domestic and international supplies and hold down natural gas prices – which are good things. Yet it will only stretch out supplies, not make an energy revolution.
I don’t see the new gas making a huge difference on the construction of new nuclear power plants since the planning horizon is so long. I certainly hope we can hold back the LNG terminals and the market share of Russian LNG in the US, especially here in California.
I’m sure that this British Columnist would agree to a “Movement of Rage”.
”
By Leo McKinstry
BRITAIN continues its descent into a socialist hell, devoid of any justice or morality. We now live in a sub-Marxist world where the ultra-politicized institutions of the State wield arbitrary power, bullying the decent members of the public while dangerous criminals walk free.”
Eco-Terrorism and a Socialist hell indeed.
Sharia law can’t be too far in the future.
Papa Ray
Socialism, the religion of the stomach*, has swallowed Britain whole.
Britain is now GULAG.
This quote* describes the hell of Soviet Russia as described by Alexsandr Solzhenitsyn in GULAG*:
>>> *”the common criminal element, “the socially friendly”, that may have been present was pandered to while being incited against political enemies of the state,”.
Britain has now reached this point in her descent into the hell of GULAG.
…-
“HONEST CITIZENS PUT IN THE DOCK AS THUGS GO FREE(sic)”.
BRITAIN continues its descent into a socialist hell, devoid of any justice or morality. We now live in a sub-Marxist world where the ultra-politicised institutions of the State wield arbitrary power, bullying the decent members of the public while dangerous criminals walk free.
The legal system is fast becoming an instrument of oppression rather than a bulwark of civilisation. Such is the grip of Left-wing thinking on our so-called law enforcers that they are no longer willing to protect society from violence and thuggery.
Instead, they prefer to hound ordinary citizens over offences such as thought crimes or breaches of their myriad environmental regulations. Similarly, infringements of traffic rules are pursued with far more authoritarian zeal than is ever applied to burglary, assault, theft, drug abuse or vandalism. in this process of politicisation, common sense has disappeared and basic freedoms have been destroyed.
In the Big Brother culture created by Labour, full of vast databases, surveillance cameras, state- employed spies and intrusive questionnaires, all of us are now treated as potential criminal suspects for being insufficiently enthusiastic about cultural diversity or the fashionable green agenda.
Yet the real enemies of our society, like crack-addicted thieves, drunken yobs, benefit swindlers or islamic terrorists,
have little to fear from our enfeebled courts, which wallow in leniency and excuse-making. the only people whose human rights count are those of offenders, not their victims.” (More)
http://www.express.co.uk/ourcomments/view/133533
(*H/T Gustave Le Bon)
55. Whitehall:
Certainly, it [gas discoveries] will increase domestic and international supplies and hold down natural gas prices – which are good things. Yet it will only stretch out supplies, not make an energy revolution.
……..
New gas discoveries will not make for an energy revolution but they have already increased US gas reserves from 10 years to 100 years.
–which isn’t chicken feed.
In Europe the excitement is that they might be able to find enough gas at home with the new technologies to get out under the thumb of putin.
Whenever a country produces its own energy it does marvelous things for its balance of payments–and the value of its currency.
Gas is not the great revolution agreed. But the new discoveries do buy the time needed to find the next big thing.
That’s enough time to do
I’m just cautioning against premature celebration about the gas. Large reserves are nice but the expense in extraction will be higher. I doubt that the Energy Returned on Energy Invested (EROEI) very will be high on wells requiring extensive completions.
Like the recent BP announcement of a “giant” oil field in the Gulf of Mexico, the reality is more sobering. First of all, a “giant” oil field is a term of art and is nice but not a ‘supergiant” which is what we need. Secondly, field is under 7,000 ft of water, (that’s DEEP) and then down 7 miles through rock. To get to this oil will require HEROIC wells.
Maybe I’m wrong to be skeptical, but until I see real production, I’ll hold off on the champaigne.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance
America is not going to bleed its wealth importing fuel. Russia’s grip on Europe’s gas will weaken.Improvident Britain may avoid paralysing blackouts by mid-decade after all.
The World Gas Conference in Buenos Aires last week was one of those events that shatter assumptions. Advances in technology for extracting gas from shale and methane beds have quickened dramatically, altering the global balance of energy faster than almost anybody expected.
“There has been a revolution in the gas fields of North America. Reserve estimates are rising sharply as technology unlocks unconventional resources,” he said.
This is almost unknown to the public, despite the efforts of Nick Grealy at “No Hot Air” who has been arguing for some time that Britain’s shale reserves could replace declining North Sea output.
Rune Bjornson from Norway’s StatoilHydro said exploitable reserves are much greater than supposed just three years ago and may meet global gas needs for generations.
“The common wisdom was that unconventional gas was too difficult, too expensive and too demanding,” he said, according to Petroleum Economist. “This has changed. If we ever doubted that gas was the fuel of the future – in many ways there’s the answer.”
The breakthrough has been to combine 3-D seismic imaging with new technologies to free “tight gas” by smashing rocks, known as hydro-fracturing or “fracking” in the trade.
The US is leading the charge. Operations in Pennsylvania and Texas have already been sufficient to cut US imports of liquefied natural gas (LGN) from Trinidad and Qatar to almost nil, with knock-on effects for the global gas market – and crude oil. It is one reason why spot prices for some LNG deliveries have dropped to 50pc of pipeline contracts.
http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com
U.S. gas production is up 9% this year – a rate of increase not seen since 1984 – with most of that gain coming from natural-gas shale, particularly the Barnett Shale, a deposit that now produces 7% of the country’s gas supply. Indeed, there could be as much as 842 trillion cubic feet of retrievable gas in shale deposits throughout the United States alone, according to Navigant Consulting. That would support the current level of U.S. consumption for about 40 years.
And that is just from the gas found so far. I have seen estimates that go as high as 100 years for the total amount of gas available with current methods. More than enough time to get fusion or even economical wind/solar/storage going.
L3 @ 33 – Thanks very for the kind word. Always good to remember that relationships are key.
I think I actually have the hardest time with liberal Christians- I feel like they should be more supportive of me, but they are often just as strident and irrational, if not more so, than the plain unsaved. My role with them seems much less clear to me. Calling them whitewashed sepulchres doesn’t seem like it should be off the table. Use with caution though of course.
I agree with the caution about optimism about exploiting newly available natural gas reserves. Keep in mind that the chief obstacle to energy independence for this country is the Left. They may well bar exploitation.
Subotai Bahadur
#62 – totally agree. Until we get rid of the Left, we cannot count on any new “bonanzas.” They can bar exploitation outright or tax or otherwise encumber production to render any finds virtually useless. I really can’t imagine them doing anything else.
******************************************
Sometimes I wish Wretchard would every now and then post some boring and skippable threads. I can’t keep up. And I do so hate to miss anything on BC.
A darker side of Columbus emerges in US classrooms
“And we talked about how he was very, very mean, very bossy.”
Columbus’ stature in US classrooms has declined somewhat through the years…
In McDonald, Pa., 30 miles southwest of Pittsburgh, fourth-grade students at Fort Cherry Elementary put Columbus on trial this year — charging him with misrepresenting the Spanish crown and thievery. They found him guilty and sentenced him to life in prison.
“In their own verbiage, he was a bad guy,”
teacher Laurie Crawford said.
#42 FC:
“”"” In many of the publicly-run institutions of the UK, at least in the UK, the people at the “sharp end” that actually do the work are actually grossly overworked and underpaid – also under-supported. “”"”
Similar scenarios in the U.S., except for possibly the underpaid part. Both the federal and state governments are trying to do too much with not enough. Think of the implications: Our governments and their attendant institutions (like public schools, for one) are staggeringly large and grossly expensive, yet whole big chuncks of the system are unable to do their mandated tasks.
#64 Doug.
Weird. As I recall, Columbus was tried on those or similar charges, and thrown in jail. It sounds like the teacher took that incident in the life of Columbus and used it out of context for a twisted ‘teaching moment.’ The charges agains Columbus in real life were spurious, and he was the victim of an injustice.
Do you have a link?
Ooops!
Duh. I see the link. Sorry